3 ms·

I wish I could find the post now, but a few months ago on /r/science, research showed that people who didn't believe in global warming were more likely to chang

I wish I could find the post now, but a few months ago on /r/science, research showed that people who didn't believe in global warming were more likely to change their minds when presented with balanced evidence for and against. YouTube has no idea how damaging this is to the cause. Folks who think that policy is a war do not understand people very well or are more interested in grandstanding and point scoring than changing minds. Viewing those who disagree with you as villains or children makes life harder for everyone.

jrootabega 5y ago
/r/science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with whatever reddit's front page userbase needs to believe/ has been convinced to believe with ad dollars that month. It's a religion. Look at its usual submitters to see that it's a priesthood with its cult, not an open community. I say this as a non-vaccine-opponent (how ridiculous of a term is that?) Name-dropping it means nothing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bena 5y ago
I found these by searching for "climate change" on /r/science. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/jseycg/conservatives_are_more_likely_to_express_concern/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/jseycg/conservativ... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hnlstq/republicans_have_become_more_skeptical_of_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hnlstq/republicans... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cm0t6c/republicans_are_more_likely_to_believe_climate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cm0t6c/republicans... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f9wl7g/individuals_who_hold_antiintellectual_views/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f9wl7g/individuals... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/km0fzc/a_series_of_experiments_shows_that_understanding/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/km0fzc/a_series_of... The last looks to be the closest to what you are talking about. But even then, it's not talking about "balanced evidence" in the way you seem to present. Because some people seem to think that to balance the evidence, it's one piece from here, one piece from there, giving them equal consideration. But it's not, it's considering the evidence without consideration to the other side. We don't give the idea that the moon is made of green cheese the same weight as the idea that it's a big rock. Because the green cheese idea is just stupid. It does not deserve consideration. And you also have the caveat that it's self-reporting and/or questionnaire driven. I can take someone who doesn't believe in global warming, show them how greenhouse gases cause warming, get them to verbally agree that that's what happening, get them to even agree that the same could apply to the whole world, but then they'll still not believe in global warming. Because they'll have a reason as to why the example doesn't apply. But if I never ask the final question, never ask if I actually changed their mind, I can present the results as if I've converted them.
cblconfederate 5y ago
i m more concerned about other services copying youtube and going very hard on any kind of covid evidence-seeking, e.g. the r/covid19 subreddit where scientific evidence is usually discussed

jrootabega 5y ago

/r/science has nothing to do with science and everything to do with whatever reddit's front page userbase needs to believe/ has been convinced to believe with ad dollars that month. It's a religion. Look at its usual submitters to see that it's a priesthood with its cult, not an open community. I say this as a non-vaccine-opponent (how ridiculous of a term is that?) Name-dropping it means nothing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bena 5y ago

I found these by searching for "climate change" on /r/science. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/jseycg/conservatives_are_more_likely_to_express_concern/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/jseycg/conservativ... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hnlstq/republicans_have_become_more_skeptical_of_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/hnlstq/republicans... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cm0t6c/republicans_are_more_likely_to_believe_climate/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/cm0t6c/republicans... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f9wl7g/individuals_who_hold_antiintellectual_views/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/f9wl7g/individuals... https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/km0fzc/a_series_of_experiments_shows_that_understanding/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/km0fzc/a_series_of... The last looks to be the closest to what you are talking about. But even then, it's not talking about "balanced evidence" in the way you seem to present. Because some people seem to think that to balance the evidence, it's one piece from here, one piece from there, giving them equal consideration. But it's not, it's considering the evidence without consideration to the other side. We don't give the idea that the moon is made of green cheese the same weight as the idea that it's a big rock. Because the green cheese idea is just stupid. It does not deserve consideration. And you also have the caveat that it's self-reporting and/or questionnaire driven. I can take someone who doesn't believe in global warming, show them how greenhouse gases cause warming, get them to verbally agree that that's what happening, get them to even agree that the same could apply to the whole world, but then they'll still not believe in global warming. Because they'll have a reason as to why the example doesn't apply. But if I never ask the final question, never ask if I actually changed their mind, I can present the results as if I've converted them.

cblconfederate 5y ago

i m more concerned about other services copying youtube and going very hard on any kind of covid evidence-seeking, e.g. the r/covid19 subreddit where scientific evidence is usually discussed